The argument here is very circular which is why I rarely involve myself, but clearly, a child will because the disease is less prolific due to vaccination.

If no one ever vaccinated, my child would have a much higher risk of dying from a preventable disease than it would of developing an auto immune disease.

There in lies the social issue.

Because these diseases almost don't exist, it gives people the luxury of being able to say they don't need to immunise or that they choose not to because the other risks are higher.

I guess if people had to go back a couple of generations and live in families where the infant mortality rate was high (most families lost or had crippled at least one child) thanks to many of these preventable diseases, some of us might better understand the need to immunise where ever possible.

And I sincerely hope that works out for your family. We've discussed the fallacy of high infectious mortality before (one need not go back that many generations because the only thing that matters is the infectious disease rate just before vaccination started, not back when doctors didn't know they needed to wash their hands) and we've also discussed how the rate of autoimmune disease is not static, but rising sharply, not just with each generation but with each passing year. Circular, just like you said. I had a whole discussion written out here about whether people who currently have an active autoimmune disease should continue taking vaccines, but it doesn't matter. Everyone posting has already made up their minds, and no one else is even reading. Once again I've let this thread get to me when I swore I was never going to bother opening it again.

I sincerely hope it works out for all of you. Best of luck and I hope your kids stay healthy.

Penned cattle are given mega doses of antibiotics to fatten them up. Common knowledge: to destroy bacteria required to keep cattle healthy. But those cattle will only live another six months. Without intestinal bacterium, cattle also no longer know when to stop feeding. That makes obese cattle and richer slaughter houses. And may now explain why so many antibiotics no longer work.

Excessive use of antibiotics may also explain human obesity, Chrone's disease, diseases now associated with bacteria missing in intestines, and some auto-immune disorders - to name a few. Antibiotics as a preventative measure obviously were and still are bad for long term health.

Not vaccinating kids (at or after 2) puts infants (less than 2 years) at elevated risk of what were once almost eliminated diseases. Many people do not vaccinate due to brainwashing; subjective claims from ‘experts’ such as Jenny McCarthy. BTW, everything Jenny McCarthy said has been proven wrong multiple times.

Down side to vaccinations is near zero. Significant problems are created when not vaccinating. The proof now seen in so many venues where Jenny McCarthy brainwashing created major outbreaks of once preventable diseases.

In one case, a teacher, who was vaccinated for whopping cough, got the disease. We know that some vaccinations wear off on some people. She had whopping cough because some parents (using emotion rather than fact) did not vaccinate their kids. The school (and herself) suffered a major whopping cough outbreak because so many parents had no regard for well proven solutions, the health of others, and health of their kids (especially infants).

In the 1950s, a majority also believed smoking increases health. Same brainwashing technique, now used by Jenny McCarthy, et al, also proved that smoking myth.

Numbers don't lie. Conclusions based only in emotions do.

I sincerely hope that works out for you, tw.

I've been reading, and I've been very intrigued by all of your arguments. I used to always be first in line for any kind of shot and also had the same attitude for my kids. But since this thread started years ago, I've changed my mind. I don't get shots any more unless I have a very compelling reason, and I don't just blindly give my kids every shot out there. We pretty much opt out of all the optional shots now, like the flu shots. So far, I haven't identified any side effects associated with any of the shots for my family, but I don't take that for granted like I used to.

We dont get flu shots either.

I'm sorry if I upset you clod. I find this whole discussion quite upsetting too. For opposite reasons, equally personal but again, opposite.

Clod, this is exactly what I expect/want/urge you to do.

Every parent should, and in Texas and probably in all US states,
has the legal and ethical right to forego immunization of their own children.

I truly do believe that parents know more about their own kids
than the physicians that treat them and I fully subscribe to the
maxim "Listen to the parent".

From your postings here about your own kids, I think you have
done a remarkably good job of coming to grips with what is best
and what is not for them in their diet and care.

We are in disagreement only when someone advocates ideas that are
contrary to what public health experience and/or scientific
investigation has shown to be valid, safe, and economically
the ways to proceed to yield the most good for the most people,
and especially for the most vulnerable.

Yes. Immunization precisely fits this description - it has been shown to be effective, safe, and yields demonstrable good for many people. Once the majority of a population has been immunized, the herd effect protects occasional individuals who are not immune. As soon as the number of unimmunized individuals rises to a critical level the herd effect is no longer operative and outbreaks occur. That's what we have seen in recent years. The choice to not immunize affects not only the individual, but many others.

We are all exposed to tens of thousands of agents that affect our immune systems - daily, over years, rather than a limited number of times (as with immunizations). Immunizations stimulate specific immune memory for a particular antigen. Immune disruptors in the environment have more general effects. It makes more sense to examine these when looking for possible reasons for the rise in autoimmune disease in recent decades than to point a finger at immunization. Even then it's important to remember that this sort of discussion is about association, not cause. Association is a place to start, but it doesn't prove causality.

I looked very carefully at the immunization issue when my children were small and my first son had a bad reaction to the pertussis vaccine. I reviewed all the literature I could find very, very carefully. From that, I came to a conclusion and had all of my children immunized according to the then-current schedule. In the past year I've had the chance to review the literature again while working on my MPH. I just mention that because it might be easy to assume that, having undergone a medical education, I must have been taught to accept immunization without thinking. In fact, I was taught not to accept anything without looking up the literature on it. While at times you find common practice that has been based on flimsy original papers or insufficient evidence, that's not the case with immunization.

If Clod is out I get to jump back in;

You should be following your doctor's advice on this and not just a thread. Medical professionals have 10-12 years of training and education, and then see 100 patients a day; all we have here is a big ol' argument.

But if you do follow the thread, the one section of the thread where we did flu shots was on Desiree Jennings, who became bizarrely ill after a flu shot... months later it was shown that she was faking, or at the very least her problems were entirely psychosomatic.*

Your own observations are uninformed and unscientific. If you had 10-12 years of training, and then saw 100 patients a day, you would be more able to notice those effects, and connect them to all possible causes, as opposed to only the ones you read about in threads.





*About which, patting myself on the back, I was right about all along, and followed the story closely in order to confirm one way or the other. But that whole thing was more about how to determine truth, not really about medicine, and is no substitute for actual training in medicine.

I have been following doctors' advice.

What I've taken from this thread and the "my kid's a nutter" thread and any others over the years is that vaccines are not without risks. I always had a "rub some dirt on it, Nancy" approach to getting shots, but I don't anymore.

I don't get flu shots anymore, but I encourage everyone else to. You all can take the risks and protect me. I'll just wash my hands and not touch my face so much.

This topic is kind of pointless for me, because the vast majority of shots for my kids came along before the controversy. We just did them without a second thought. The only one we gave some serious thought to was my daughter getting the Gardasil shot, and we decided to go ahead with that after my wife talked at length with the pediatrician and he convinced her it was worth it.

Again, this thread's information is unscientific. Don't listen to anyone in it, including me.

aw shit now you need to not follow my advice in this very post

What specific risks do you mean, glatt? There's a small risk of feeling a bit tired and achy for a couple of days. For people allergic to eggs there's a flu vaccine made without eggs, although even people with egg allergies can usually get the vaccine without problems.

The problem is that 'we all' can't protect you if too many people choose not to get the vaccine (see herd immunity, above). Washing hands and not touching your face is good, but influenza is also droplet transmitted. Someone who sneezes puts two general types of droplets into the air: large ones that fall due to gravity within about six feet (thus the six-foot distance rule), and small ones that remain aerosolized for prolonged times, on the order of hours. That cloud of small droplets will remain and slowly spread in a room long after the person who created it leaves the room. That's how you can get 'flu without any recognizable contact with sick people (along with fomites on doorknobs and phones etc.). Influenza isn't a benign disease; even if it doesn't put you in hospital you may pass it on to someone who will die from it.

If you believe the risks of the shot, whatever they may be, are unacceptable for you, a healthy adult male with a presumably functioning immune system, on what basis do you encourage others to get the shot and assume those unacceptable risks in order to protect you? That's not my general impression of how you argue and think.

The obvious solution...

It's the only way to be sure.

Not you personally. It's a topic I can't handle, and can't stay away from. Every single time this thread is active, I feel like shit for days, I yell at my kids for no reason, I cry repeatedly. They tried to tell me it was PTSD, but I said that couldn't be right because it implied any of it was "post" yet. Ha, ha. Ha.

I do remember Ali, you had a close friend or maybe even relative whose baby died from pertussis. That sucks and I was very sorry to hear it.

And a cousin (second) who lived with Polio as a cripple (eta: I should say, lived as a cripple thanks to polio) till he died young. There are just so many stories which are so close to home. I have a first cousin with huge mental and intellectual disabilities and they suspect that it could be because his mother had rubella when she was pregnant - it's not certain, but it's possible; she was also involved in a minor car accident, so it could have been that to.

I'm just saying, you don't have to go very far back in modern history to hear countless stories. It's so easy not to acknowledge it when we don't have to live it.

I am just afraid that we're trading one bad thing for another. Just as you are. I guess personal experience is what has made both of us choose opposite sides of the same coin.

I do understand why you feel the way you do Clod. Honestly I do, and I love you for what you do, and how much you sacrifice for your kids and your beliefs. I think I speak for everyone when I say you are inspirational. There's no denying your commitment. The world would be a darker place without people like you. xxx

I could lock the thread if you prefer.

UT, if you're asking me, then I'd say no, simply because it's a topic which will come up again one way or another regardless of which thread it is. I have no objections to you doing so if that's what others would prefer though.

Asking Clod honestly, because I don't think any of us wants to create that kind of upset in anyone's life. It's all fair.

No, Ali's right, the topic would just come up again elsewhere. What I really wish is that there were a way to put a thread on ignore, to just not see it and prevent myself from getting involved. But I'm pretty sure you've said before that that's not possible in vBulletin.

Clod, if I may offer some cold comfort direct form Vermont:

"It's hard saying, not knowing."

I think you have every reason to be suspicious of vaccines and other drugs and western medicine. It's also important to think through your conclusions, sometimes the questions are worth a lot more than the answers.

There has to be an opt-out option in any vaccination law, for the people like Clod who are smarter than the average bear, actually know their children inside out, and can make rational decisions from broad based knowledge.

Any parent who makes these decisions and has half a brain, is going to have doubts because there is no bell or buzzer for the right answer. You do the best you can with the knowledge you have, and you may never really know if you did the right thing.

But as we all know, there is a large contingent out there that form lynch mobs, say hold my beer and watch this, plan their future with Ouija boards & fortune cookies, and vote for the stupidest motherfuckers in the world. It's unfortunate we all suffer at the hands of these morons, but when people in this thread refer to that group, it does make for a very compelling argument for mandatory.

Just be sure that when you make your risk assessment, you do it with the best information available. Don't settle for random internet sites. Search Pubmed and Scopus, even though it means a subscription. Then make your decision.

Clod, I believe you want the best for your children and are willing to sacrifice to accomplish that. Your devotion and investment speak for themselves. Anything I've said in this thread wasn't meant to make you feel invalidated or stressed.

There will always be a few people and famillies for whom vaccination is inappropriate or for whom the individual risks associated with vaccination outweigh the social benefits. Unfortunately, a lot of people make their decisions based on flawed science as presented in the popular press.

Clod: you are clearly not the latter and may very well be the former. You've certainly done a lot more research and learning, in general and specific terms, than most people ever will when faced with this decision. You've had to be, in order to get your head around the very specific risks your children have faced and will face.

You are not the problem. The rest of us have a duty to be vaccinated*in order to protect families like yours.




* that said, my vaccinations as a child had to be abandoned halfway through as my baby eczema pretty much exploded after the first lot. I didn't have any of the later shots like rubella and so on,. As an adult I've had specific vaccinations for specific risks (tetanus, flu), but I am very cautious. because of my particular history I would be wary of vaccinations if I had kids, but would want to discuss in some depth with my GP, who specialises in dermatological conditions.

Many make that statement but rarely say how it is done. Recommending a responsible publication is suggestion. But more important is how to separate many ill informed sources from the few that actually have facts.

The information must always say why. And must always provide perspective (ie the numbers). Any source that makes a subjective claim is probably better considered propaganda. No perspective (the numbers) is a first indication that the source is probably useless.

Statements make by Jenny McCarthy clearly and without doubt met the criteria for 'useless'. Her statements could not have been more subjective; clearly were only wild speculation. That much should have been obvious to everyone. Unfortunately, a majority never learn how to separate chaff from fact.

I learn something new every day: a wildly horrible case of eczema can be a rare adverse reaction to the smallpox vax. The vax is no longer generally given, because the disease has been eradicated world-wide. A safer version of the vax cannot be developed because it cannot be tested.

wikipedia on exzema vaccinatum

It is thought that the smallpox vax protects against HIV transmission.

Interesting. That isn't what I had, thankfully. But something went drastically wrong somewhere around the time of my first vaccs.

I can attest to the horribleness of chicken pox with eczema though...

Why don't they just get the measles vaccine then? Why all 3?

If there was a measles outbreak nearby, I think I would be OK with my kids getting one. I wouldn't go to court and try to force them to though. We chose not to do it because they were not at risk, and the vaccine was more dangerous than the diseases to an infant.

My friend Rod's baby died shortly after getting that shot. SIDS, was the 'cause' of death. The mother, Dawn was lying on her back with Parker on her chest. They both fell asleep. Parker had been crying and uncomfortable and they had both been up all night. Died while she slept.

Dawn and jinx went to the same birth classes. Spencer and Parker were 2 weeks apart in age. Fucking horrible.

Neither of my kids has gotten chicken pox or mumps or measles.

Measles is a horrible disease.Its transmission is airborne, meaning that if you're in the same room with someone who's shedding virus, or if you enter the room that person left 30 minutes ago, you'll get it. Measles kills. It also causes SSPE, subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, which is Latin for your brain just died - although the rest of you didn't. It also causes blindness.

Mumps is painful and miserable in kids (besides reading the literature, I had it), but in males it causes orchitis. Which means inflammation of the testes, leading to scarring and inability to produce sperm.

Pertussis kills, period. It's a bad actor. I had it too, fortunately when I was old enough to just cough myself blue in the face and then throw up for weeks on end. Did I lose weight and fail to thrive? You bet. But I was one of the lucky ones that didn't die of hypoxia.

Chicken pox are miserable for small kids, and serious for a minority. They're serious for older kids, though - think viral encephalitis, the possibility of never regaining normal neurological function - and, if nothing else, they leave scars at that point, a bit like small smallpox scars. Not funny. In susceptible adults, chicken pox is a virulent, serious disease that has complications in the majority. In pregnant women, chicken pox is an unmitigated disaster.

All three vaccines are necessary because we need herd immunity. The more of us that are immune, the lower the chance that the disease will manage to propagate in our population.

Jim, I'm sorry to hear about the death of Dawn's child, but SIDS has NO association with vaccines. I understand that it would be an easy association to make in this instance, but it's not true, any more than saying that roosters cause the sun to rise by crowing.

The coming tragedy will be the resurgence of these truly awful diseases as more and more people refuse vaccines, seeing no need for them because they have no experience with the diseases due to pre-existing herd immunity, and they've fallen prey to the downside of the internet: charlatans whose heads are up their asses, preaching doom and quoting (unsubstantiated) anecdotes as a scare tactic, without any substantiated proof of their assertions. These charlatans should be held accountable for every vaccine-preventable death and life disaster that occurs as a result of their deliberate perpetration of falsehood.

Vaccination was one of the immense steps forward for the human race. And now, because it was SO successful, many are declaring that we have nothing to fear from the diseases it prevents, and making it the scapegoat for problems that have other origins.

SIDS is not a specific cause of death. Who are you to say that the two events were unrelated? Also, using that rooster and sun analogy is like calling me stupid.

And you don't need 100% herd immunity to eradicate a disease. All you need is perimeter immunity. My kids are unlikely to come into contact with either disease. They are definitely not going to spontaneously generate them.
I don't disagree with the concept of immunization. I do disagree with giving kids 20+ shots before age 2.

Neither of us is going to convince the other about this. I don't care if you give them to your kid, just don't tell me I have to do the same.

As much as I agree with vaccinations in the main, I also know that they were almost certainly responsible for the severe chronic eczema that has blighted my life and wrecked my childhood. The timing of the jump from ordinary little bitty baby eczema rash to full blown horror was too damn close.

Mum didn't want to continue after the first one. I was flared and uncomfortable. She was bullied and cajoled and made to feel like a bad parent and hysterical mum for wanting to cease the shots. They persuaded her to do the next and bang: full blown eczema within a day.

When i say bullied and cajoled, I mean properly ganged up on by several nurses at the clinic, the doctor, and even a consultant from the hospital. I don't know why. Maybe they had targets.

My cousins meanwhile, who also had some baby eczema, weren't given the shots until they were better. Their doctor advised against.

Why do you people hate clodfobble?

Heh. I actually thought you'd moved this thread to a hidden forum, it went quiet so quickly before. It's cool though. I've been way, way, (WAY) less depressed in general since going on my kids' diet. I feel awesome for the first time in who knows how long, maybe ever. The thread popped up and my only thought was, "Huh, I can see it after all."

Still not going to participate in it, but I also don't feel compelled to, so that's good. You guys carry on if you want to.

Eczema is caused by a genetic predisposition, (among other things), and stress definitely makes it worse.

Which is what vaccinations are - stressors which induce an immune response. Your cousins doctor was quite right, imo.

Perhaps your doctors knew of an outbreak of a childhood disease in your area and at that time, and had received instructions to vaccinate everyone they could, to prevent it's spread.

The outbreak may have disappeared by the time your cousins saw the doctor.

Handling outbreaks of highly contagious diseases, is never perfect. Doctors can be damned if they do over-vaccinate, and definitely damned if they don't.

I agree Adak. But I also think that the tendency to dismiss as invalid mothers' concerns about their children was much worse back in the 70s.

left my mum with a whole lot of guilt and wishing she'd stood her ground more. Though she really tried. As i say, they even drafted in a consultant to come talk to her because she was being 'obstinate'.

I am still broadly in favour of vaccination programmes, mind you. But Jim's right: they don't need to vaccinate every single child. And forcing the parents who do not wish it for their children is wrong imo.

What they need to do is get better at presenting the message so that fewer parents will opt out without specific reasons (such as that their child has a family history of certain illnesses).

using the law as a blunt instrument only serves to further increase suspicion and cynicism.


[eta] ok, I have actually read the article now. I am still not sure whether I agree with the ruling or not, but this is a matter of two parents disagreeing on the best thing for their daughters. Horrible for all concerned.

I was just wondering recently how it was going for you, Clod. So do you think you are allergic to gluten as well, or is their diet just that much better for everyone?

Oh I've been off gluten for 4.5 years, and yes, it made a big difference for me in general health, though I wouldn't say I noticed anything brain-wise. Dairy, on the other hand, noticeably messes with my mood, so I have been on and off it over the last 4 years as my will waxed and waned.

But my kids (and now I) are on something called the Specific Carbohydrate Diet, which is no grains, sugars or starches of any kind. Just meats & eggs, fruits & vegetables, nuts & seeds. It's intended to purposefully starve out all the major classes of bad gut bacteria by not providing them the polysaccharides they feed on. I do believe that it's just that much better for everyone, but I also know it's not a realistic lifestyle commitment for most people, because ev.er.y.thing. must be made from scratch. I make my own mayonnaise, fruit rollups, salad dressings, broth... (not all in the same meal, of course.)

Polysaccharides (ie glucose, fructose) by itself is not a problem. But these tend to be more destructive when one eats too much of any sugars. An overwhelming majority of us do. Many foods are routinely 'improved' to increase sales - even bread. A body with too many sugars is then (recent research suggests) much more susceptible to damage by those polysaccharides.

Many food labels simply use multiple names for sugars so that sugar does not appear as the #1 ingredient.

Generally, it takes maybe three days just to reduce those sugar levels in places such as the liver (yes, this is a ballpark number based in how much sugar was being consumed and the diet in those three days). An example of why low sugar diets have so little effect until at least day three.

We also know that excessive sugar is one reason for less memory retention.

So should one not consume Orange juice? Of course not. If any food has no nutritional value (even sugar free diet foods), then it only creates more or future problems. Foods that contain sugars must also have required nutritional benefits. Orange juice does (if not consumed in excess). No sodas (pop) do - not even diet drinks.

LJ, I was not calling you stupid. I was pointing out that association is not the same as causation.

This is the difficulty that epidemiologists live with. They report associations. Sometimes the increased risk that they report is associated with the exposure in a causal relationship, and sometimes not. When they report an increased risk, smart people don't ignore it; they investigate it.

No, you don't need 100% herd immunity, but you need more than perimeter immunity. You need more than 95% immunity, so that the chain of transmission breaks at every possible point. When more than 5% decide that they or their children don't need immune protection, the herd becomes vulnerable. Given the rise in vaccine refusal in the US, chances are very good that at some point your children will come into contact with one or more of the diseases to which they have no immunity, and most likely at the most vulnerable time of their lives - as adults.

If you disagree with many 'shots' before age 2, would you be willing to immunize your children against the major killers of the 20th century? Meaning: Diphtheria, polio, tetanus, pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella. Quite a few more immunizations have been recommended, and all recommendations are backed up with clinical evidence.

Conventional doctors have no dog in the fight about immunization, except that they are aware that the more people who believe charlatans and refuse vaccination, the more vulnerable the population becomes. Charlatans are the ones preaching doom and reporting anecdotes, rather than controlled, reproducible studies.

Back in 1999, our first pediatrician (a large practice) stopped seeing us because we decided not to get the mmr. The doctor that was trying to convince us to get it was maybe 27 years old. She said she had seen so many kids die of measles, and it was a horrible killer.

I think there were something like 60 cases of measles reported per year in the US at that time and 0 fatalities. I think they had a dog in the fight. Maybe she lied. Maybe she had been living in India. ... but she was clearly deceptive.

Do doctor's practices keep statistics of how many patients are/are not vaccinated? Are there financial ramifications or rewards involved?

Anyway, to answer the question... if my kids were going to India, or another high risk area, I would seriously consider it. ... but while they are in school, if they get ANY immu, they have to get ALL, because we would lose the philosophical exemption. They are both strong and healthy. If, by some freak vector, they did contract measles or mumps, they would receive prompt medical care, and have an excellent chance of surviving it anyway.

Once they are adults, if they go into the medical profession, or join greenpeace or something that would put them in contact with nasty things that could be thwarted by vaccines, then I would probably encourage them to research the vaccines, and go about getting select immunizations.

It is 100% risk reward in my opinion. So far, the risk is greater than the reward.

I would like to build my own house, that would be so sweet! But when the day came to start, I would leave most of it up to architects, carpenters, plumbers, people who know what they're doing.

I mean I've only taken one single shop class, Electronics. And the one thing that class did was to assure me that I should DEFINITELY NOT be wiring my own house.

What classes did you take that tell you you have the ability to make this call. Did you in fact take Biology? Probability/statistics? Did you get taught germ theory and got a 90 on the test? I had pre-meds and pre-dents for roommates in college, so I know what I'm talking about.

This is not to say U R DUM so never take it personally. You know I love you man.

I'm actually saying WE R ALL DUM. We all fuck up our lives, always, regularly, because we don't know what we're doing.

So, a carpenter told you he sees houses not built out of brick to be unstable, and he's seen a bunch of them blow right over. Does that discredit the entire profession of carpentry? Does it mean The Fix Is In from from the Big Brick Industry? One single carpenter with an opinion, trying to make a point, doesn't mean I should take over pounding nails for my own place. If I want a really solid house, I should still be leaving all that shit up to other people. I am qualified to decide what color the paint should be, and what the wiring for the network should be, and not much else.

Why not give these vaccinations to adults instead? It's adults that are most threatened with serious complications from these diseases, no? Getting measles, mumps or chicken pox while young isn't quite as serious and in fact helps to build up natural immunity. I grew up in the 60's and I think I got sick with all three while very young. I think most of my friends and classmates did too. I don't recall the level of fear then that is being pushed today.

This is the only part of your post that makes any sense to me. I'm not following the construction analogies.

So, we agree on this point. It's just that Playing God, injecting live viruses into infants in an aggressive, broad brushed manner seems a lot riskier to me.

But is all medicine Playing God, or just the parts that sound freaky and/or scary and/or we don't know how they work exactly?

One more time.


If they let you choose which vaccines to give your kids, did them ONE AT A TIME, and provided you with unbiased facts about the risks and benefits of each vaccine. ....I think I probably would give my kids certain ones.

When it was time to make the decision, we saw a higher risk of injury from the vaccine than exposure and injury by one or all of the diseases.

I'm not telling you what you should do with your kids. I am telling you what we did and why.

I don't know. Do you still beat your wife?

You just had to go and ask didn't you. Now we're going to have to call in an Epidemiotheologian and that's gonna cost big bucks man!

Then why'd ya bring it up?

Because you said we're all dum. We don't know what we're doing. You disclaim calling me dum, but then use a Dummed down analogy to illustrate your point that I should just trust the experts.
Then you try to make me sound like a Jehovas witness. Wtf?

I'm saying that when in doubt, you're better off trusting nature (god) than man made work arounds(playing God). Shelby breast fed the kids for the same reason.

We were in doubt.

Ok, bro. I'm done with this. We did what we felt was the best thing for our kids at the time. You clearly think we should have done the immunizations. I get it. thing is, they are my responsibility, not yours or orthodocs, or the lying doctorette. Mine. You can disagree with my conclusion and choose yours when you have kids. Just, please stop intimating that we chose our path out of ignorance or fear.

Damn

You read that into what I said more than I wrote it.

Perhaps

It's not unlikely that she had indeed been to India or Nigeria or some other country where children still die of measles. When I was in university, in Canada, we didn't spend time overseas; now most students do. And there are many opportunities for American medical students to spend time in countries where they would see many children die of preventable diseases. You can't assume she was being deceptive.

There are no financial ramifications or 'rewards' involved in trying to provide the best possible health care, which is PREVENTIVE health care. Which includes immunizations. Immunization is possibly the single most important advance in medical history. It began with protection against smallpox, a global scourge at the time.

You resent any implication that you may be 'dum' (something I never suggested), yet you're comfortable smearing every physician who busts his/her balls to provide proven, tested care to people who need it. We don't often go for alternative medicine, because alternative medicine, once, tested and confirmed effective, is simply MEDICINE. The other stuff is charlatanism.

But you live in the Land of the Free and you're free to regard measles as an 'of course children get it and it's no big deal' disease. Trouble is, you're wrong. It kills; when it doesn't kill, it causes blindness and encephalitis. The physicians who had to watch their patients suffer this disease were wholly on board with immunization programs.

Would you sneer at TB? It's still out there and we're susceptible. Infectious disease is a global issue now; it takes less than 24 hours for an airborne disease to circle the globe. Both measles and TB are airborne diseases.

FFS. I don't know of any physician who is 'in league' in any way with vaccine companies, who has a dog in the fight. We just read the fucking medical literature and realize that the numbers speak the truth.

You made a choice for your kids and they have to live with it. Chances are, if they stay in the US, they'll fly under the radar because others protected them. But immigration and visitation patterns change all the time, and they may not be protected. If they get these diseases as adults, not only will they have a more severe form (remember, measles kills and blinds in children); they'll communicate the disease to vulnerable people before they even know they have it.

That's your freedom; that's your choice. As long as you realize that you're playing Russian roulette with not only your children's lives, but their children's and those of others as well, and you're comfortable with that, knowing that not ONE concern about vaccines has stood the test of careful scrutiny.

Vaccination issues is a hot topic here after a boy who was infectious with measles spent a day at one of our biggest theme parks during spring break.

For my part, i am sure the parents wouldn't have allowed such a thing on purpose, but there would be a high risk for lots of children too young to be immunised.

Personally, i dont see any proof against immunisation which stacks up against the possible risks of not doing it. I have made my point here before though, so no need to do it again.

Good. You have numbers. After all, such decisions always - as in always - require perspective only possible with numbers. Since you knew better than biased doctors, then provide those numbers. Let all see this problem since honest discussion is always about sharing such important facts.

Have you held your baby while it got a shot?

Would you really wanted them to get four separate shots? Or one with everything in it.

You feeling alright?

If I was trying to convince you of something, I might link numbers. I don't really care if you approve of my actions though.

Back in 1998-1999 when we were faced with this decision, jinx did tons of research about vaccine injuries and deaths or illnesses related to the diseases the vaccines are made to combat. As I stated, there were zero deaths due to measles in the US. There were many more cases of vaccine related injury, increasing incidence of autism, digestive disorders, etc. There was also a good bit of controversy about the businesses that manufacture the vaccines getting protection from liability due to alleged injury.

It seemed far more likely that there would be a negative reaction to the vaccine than the remote chance of contraction of, and subsequent harm by one of the diseases.

I didn't even mention that Spencer came up with a rash on his face and scalp (eczema was the diagnosis) 2 or 3 days after one of the early shots he got before we started having second thoughts about them.

He had bad mood swings throughout his childhood if he had too much dairy. Ripley would get a bright red patch on her face, and bad poopies if she had dairy. Clod could probably tell you more about what that indicates.... but I truly believe we did the right thing. And I KNOW we did what we did in an informed and logical manner.

Not bad, considering. I'm mostly pain free these days, which is a blessing. My energy is better since I started taking sublingual B12 in addition to the monthly shot. The bile-salt diarrhea is improving but I'm still in the bathroom a lot. And I never trust a fart.

How you doin'?

I'm good.